DOCUMENT RESUME
SP 033 241
Weiner, Lois
Teachers: Lost at the Crossroads of
Historiography.
Apr 91
24p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (Chicago,
IL, April 3-7, 1991),
Speeches/Conference Papers (150) ~ Information
Analyses (070)
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
"Educational History; Elementary Secondary Education;
"Females; historiography; Literature Reviews;
"Teachers; "Teaching (Occupation); "Unions
"Feminist Scholarship
The study of teachers may well be a lens for fusing
history of education's disparate perspectives, for teachers stand at
the intersection of several of historiography's most dynamic
currents. Teachers can be categorized as women, workers,
professionals, citizens, and conveyers of values and ideas. Yet,
until quite recently, teachers and their lives were absent from the
writing of historians. This paper examines how and why several
different waves of educational historiography have ignored the
history of teachers. Ultimately, teachers as a subject of historical
investigation were discovered at the crossroads of labor and women's
history, but not before both perspectives were well established.
Teacher unionism and teachers as a subject cf feminist scholarship
are discussed. Forty bibliographical references are included.
(IAH)
ED 337 418
AUTHOR
TITLE
PUB DATE
NOTE
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
************ **************************"*************»*********«***«***
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
* from the original document.
»
TEACHERS: LOST AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
00
PAPER PRESENTED TO THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
°^ CHICAGO, APRIL 1991
W LOIS WEINER
DEPARTMENT OP ADMINISTRATION, CURRICULUM, AND ADMINISTRATION
JERSEY CITY STATE COLLEGE
JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY
v
9
ERIC
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Lois IaM/ per
U S. OCPAPTTMCNTOr EDUCATION
Office or Educational R$«»nr^ ann improvemrni
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
{ % This document has been reproduced as
receded 'rom ihe person or organisation
originating >t
t* Minor changes have been made !C •mprove
reproduction quality
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
• Pomisot view or op»n«ons stated in thisdo< u
ment do not necessary represent o^eiai
OERl position or policy
The study of teachers may well be a lens for fusing history
of education's disparate perspectives, for teachers stand at the
Intersection of several of historiography's most dynamic
currents. Teachers can be categorized as women, workers,
professionals, citizens, and conveyers of values and Ideas. Yet,
until quite recently, teachers and their lives were absent from
the writing of historians, no matter what their specialization.
In his research on school envoi lment patterns In Providence, Joel
Perlmann noted that we have little sense of how even to frame our
questions about school life because of our astonishing lack of
Information about teachers. 1 In this paper I will examine how
and why several different waves of educational historiography
have Ignored the history of teachers.
LOST — AND FOUND — AT THE CROSSROADS
As the Sixties drew to a close, more than half a million
American teachers, one out of every four elementary and secondary
teachers, had engaged in work stoppages. By 1970, the politics of
education had been substantially altered by the introduction of
collective bargaining; teacher unionism had given organized labor
a foothold in the white collar occupations it had targeted for
membership growth; and the world's largest teacher union local
had collided with the civil rights movement. 2
Many publications discussed the startling emergence of
teacher unionism, but historians of education, even those who
defended their "presentist" concerns, paid it no serious
attention for almost twenty-five years. The successive
reconceptualizations of educational history by "new historians,"
revisionists, and writers of social history, including historians
of labor, women, and urbanization, ignored teachers and their
organizations, though it was a topic germane to each of the new
perspectives. How did this serial and collective historiographic
myopia occur?
The change in teachers' lives as workers and educators was
promptly noted by some educational journals. Phi Delta Kappan
rushed to discuss its first manifestation, the 1960 teachers
strike in New York City: Myron Lieberman described "The Battle
for New York City Teachers" and R.J. Barstow asked "Which Way New
York City — Which way the Professionals?" 3 Starting in 1963, the
T eachers College Record carried at least one article a year about
teacher unionism, prefacing a 1964 article with the note that
teacher unionism was "one of the hottest issues before
professional educators." 4 in 1965 the Record editors noted the
heavy volume of mail received after an exchange between
representatives of the two organizations contending for teachers'
loyalty and dues, the American federation of Teachers (AFT) and
the National Education Association (NEA). 5
As APT's organizing vicoiies increased pressure on NEA to
change its philosophy and tactics, academic interest in teacher
unionism increased. Dissertation Abstracts chronicled both
phenomena, in 1964-65, only one dissertation was written on
collective bargaining in education, but by 1966-67 the number had
jumped to 14. Between 1967 and 19S9, 48 dissertations, primarily
2
o
ERIC
4
in political science and sociology, were listed under "Collective
Bargaining -Teachers," covering developments in Alabama,
California, Michigan, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri,
Ohio, Kansas, Texas, Washington state, Utah, Connecticut, and
Minnesota. 6
Harvard Educational Rev iew showed less interest than the
Teachers College Record in this alteration in teachers' view of
themselves and their work, waiting until 1967 to acknowledge
teacher unionism. In a book review, Joseph Cronin warned that
teacher unionism might not bring the educational improvements its
proponents claimed. "Should negotiations simply rearrange the
balance of power between those who manage a bureaucracy and those
whc staff it, the prospects for broader educational reform may be
dampened by still another formalized set of constraints" he
warned. His apprehension may have been shared by the Review 's
editors and explain why they delayed five years after the
Teachers College Record to broach the topic of teachers' new
identity as unionists. George Counts countered Cronin 's caution
with a ringing defense of the new development and concluded that
at last "The time has arrived for placing the role of the teacher
in historical perspective." 8 But an examination of the History of
Education Quarterly over the next decade reveals that if Counts'
statement is taken as a confirmation of fact rather than a plea,
he was very much mistaken. Not for seven more years, when panels
in the history of education at the 1974 convention of the
American Educational Research Association took up women's
experience in educational history and teacher unionism, would
teachers be formally discussed by historians of education; even
then the discourse was episodic. In Wayne Urban' 8 1976
examination of teacher organization and educational reform in the
Progressive era he remarked on teachers' absence: "One topic that
has been largely neglected in the 'renaissance' of educational
history in the past two decades is the teacher". 9
The omission was regularly noted but not corrected. In a
1977 History of Education Quarterly exchange on Schooling in
Capitalist America , Joseph Featherstone wondered at how "two
Marxists have managed to write a full-scale study of American
education that manages to omit the workers in the schools- the
teachers." 10 In his 1978 essay review of The Culture and Politics
of American Teachers , Arthur G. Powell again reminded historians
that "The history of teachers has remained a neglected subject."
Nor had the "recent flowering of urban school history done much
to change the invisibility of teachers" he noted. 11 Finally, in
1984, seventeen years after George Counts had proclaimed
teachers' rightful place in the history of education, a photo of
Margaret Haley graced the cover of History of Education
Quarterly , along with Marvin Lazerson's essay review of two
historical studies of teacher unionism. 12
Why did historians of education, who were borrowing the
tools of other social sciences, neglect a topic their colleagues
in sociology and political science were mining so richly? To
start, in the late 1950s and early 1960s under the intellectual
4
f)
9
ERIC
leadership of Bernard Bailyn and Lawrence Cremin, they were
occupied with defining and relocating the discipline, placing the
history of education in departments of history, where it would be
defined broadly as cultural transmission across the generations,
rather than in schools of education where its purpose was to
educate teachers about schooling's institutional advances.
Cremin argued that history of education as practiced in
schools of education had become a barren paean to progress,
although he acknowledged that once real historians "raised the
right questions, even the previous generation of historians of
education could write fairly broadly and dispassionately" on
them. 13 Defending the "educationists," that is. historians of
education who were in schools of education, Robert E. Mason
acknowledged that their involvement in teacher preparation
programs had indeed shaped their perspective on the history of
education, as well was their view of the appropriate academic
affiliation for the discipline. However, Mason countered, the
educationists' view of schooling was no more shaped by their
affiliation with teacher preparation than was the critique of
Cremin and the "new historians" he represented influenced by the
Pord Foundation, which had funded Education and American History ,
the report which criticized the educationists. The educationists
were no more interested or disinterested in advancing a
particular point of view than scholars "subsidized by the Ford
Foundation," he wrote, because "the professional scholar cannot
really escape being 'interested'." 14
5
7
By the i«»te 1970' s the educationists had ceded their
hegemony, at least institutionally. One half of the disserations
in the history of education from 1970 to 1980 on teachers'
professional organizations were Ph.D.'s and the other Ed.D.'s.- 10
David Tyack affirmed that "new historians'' had "discoverad a
richly varied terrain, previously neglected" which teachers would
benefit from studying. 16 It was, however, a landscape thai was
for the most part barren of insight or information about teachers
themselves, except for Tyack 's own study on urban schooling, The
One Best System , which in discussing the texture of existence in
school examined the lives of those who inhabit them. 17
History of Education Quarterly had indeed broadened its
Interests, as evidenced by a December 1964 review of Philippe
Aries' Centuries of Childhood: A social History of Family Life ,
but this more expansive view did not include teachers. The 1972
bibliography for historians of education listed one citation
about teachers, a selection in Vermont History , "A Teacher and
Her Students: My mother Ellen Peck and Her One-Room Schoolhouse
in East Montpelier," a piece not so different from the kind of
article the "new historians" had excoriated the educationists for
writing, not so different from the 1958 History of Education
Quarterly piece, "Uncle Charlie's Teaching Days," an oral history
of rural school teaching. 18
By the beginning of the 1970 's, the "new historians" were
themselves challenged by "revisionists" on the nature of school
reform and the purposes of school reformers, but the revisionists
6
8
duplicated the "new historians'" omission of teachers, for
different reasons. The revisionists, who grounded their
historical critiques in a social vision informed by radical . New
Left politics, certainly could not be accused, like their
predecessors, of the "supercilious disdain of unionism which so
many o» us in education. . .carry as the baggage of the genteel but
politically disenfranchised. 1,19 The revisionists' disdain for
teachers' lives and their organizations had other roots.
The revisionist historians examined the relationship between
school systems and society, sharing an analytic framework with
othor radical social scientists, like Bowles and Glntis. Both
groups based their work on the view of schooling and school life
of radical critics of education in the 1960s, or "romantic"
critics as Diane Ravitch describes them. The "romantics" differed
in the type of indictment they made of public education, but they
shared a concern that "schools destroyed the souls of children,
whether black or white, middle-class o* 1 poor" and advocated a
pedagogy based on the ideas in A.S. Neill's Summerhlll . 20 To -
the most part, the "romantics" explicitly rejected the
possibility of reforming public schools, and radical socl&J
scientists began where the "romantics" left off, trying to
understand and effect Institutional change. Revisionist
historians attempted to provide components which the "romantics"
ignored in their "ahistorical" and "atheoretical" movement, two
characteristics which Lawrence Cremin noted limited the ability
of this renascent progressive education movement to go from
7
9
protest to reform, but in examining schooling historically, the
revisionists relied on the "romantic" perception of teachers. 21
"Romantics" like Herb Kohl and Jonathan Kozol were
Influential and widely quoted, and their work exemplified the New
Left's disdain for public schools and its teachers. The
"romantics" had little interest in working with any teachers to
Improve the school, except those who were radical like
themselves, an atttitude shared - or learned- in graduate schools
of education. As one angry teacher educator observed in 1971, a
"worldview not currently popular" in graduate schools of
education is that "schools are worth reforming- that there are
students, and teachers, in them who need fresh ideas and
challenges to traditional ways." 22 Ravitch places publication of
Johnathan Kozol 's Death at an Early Aos and Herbert Kohl's 36
Children at the apex of the "romantic" criticism of public
education, and an examination of Kozol and Kolh's writing reveals
how their perception of teachers subsequently framed revisionists
histories. 23
Johnathan Kozol 's narrative of his work in a mainly black
elementary school describes how only he of all the teachers truly
cared for the students. Death at an Early Age reverberates with
Kozol 's contempt for the career teachers and his lack of interest
in understanding the institutional obstacles they faced in
sustaining idealism they, like he, may have initially brought to
their jobs. 24 After four months of teaching, Kozol felt
experienced enough to tell the reading teacher she was a racist,
8
10
yet he was confused and crestfallen when he was fired and no
teachers, not even his "friend" the reading teacher, rose to
support hliA. The lives and concerns of the teachers, probably
older females, were invisible or offensively conservative to
Kozol. Kohl, who taught In New York City school as its teachers
launched teacher unionism's rebirth, dropped out of union
activity after the 1961 strike, right at the point that most of
the school staff joined the union, because their presence
deprived the radicals of control. 25 In an earlier work Kohl
advises new teachers against talking to other teachers about
one's ideas, warning that one should be polite and silent at
faculty meetings. 26
Ironically, as Kohl's mention of his brief union experience
reveals, the "romantic" view of teachers, unmovable as
individuals and non-existent as a collectivity, developed just as
teacher unionism was beginning its spectacular growth in the
middle and late 1960 's, with teachers In urban areas especially,
challenging the political status quo within school systems. In
her 1967 review of two magazines, one produced by the AFT, the
other by "romantic" or "New Left" critics of schooling, Maxine
Greene argued that the publications exemplified the polarization
of the progressive movement In education between "romantics" and
unionists. She faulted the AFT publication for fusing a "front
office" sensibility to its "unexceptionable" aims, while rebuking
the editors of the romantic periodical for v heir boastful refusal
to discuss alternative social arrangements t. t -ould allow
9
o
ERIC
11
teachers to take up the values the "romantics" espoused. "These
two magazines are strangely dichotomous. In being dichotomous,
they are disturbingly exemplary," she wrote, but "The time may
• 27
yet come when we can overcome the either/or. Cl
Teachers and their organizations had no possible connection
to educational reform - or any progressive change for that matter
- for the "romantic" critics, most radical social scientists, and
revisionist historians, who only reproduced the anti-union
attitudes of the American student or New Left of the late 1960's.
When Marvin Garson, a prominent leader of the New Left declared
"I'd walk through a picket line of plumbers" he expressed the
anti-union sentiment of a generation of radicals who saw unions
as intractable defenders of an oppressive status quo. This in
part explains the curious failure of Bowles and Gintis to discuss
teachers, as Joseph Featherstone noted. Schooling in Capitalist
America took up workers and class but never mentioned unions, in
the workplace or in the political system. Their program for
educational reform gives neither teachers nor unions in general
any particular role in social change. Unions simply Join
"schools, the me^.ia, and government" as bodies in which
revolutionaries need to be "conquering positions of strength." 28
Not everyone with roots in the New Left ignored teachers and
their organizations: some radical reformers turned the Marxist
orientation of using unions' stability and institutional
resources on its head. They contended that teacher unions were
reform's natural opponent. As David K. Co.^.en wrote, teacher
10
12
unions could never be allied with progressive reform for they
"not only lobby for their economic Interest but they also use
public Institutions and Influence over the licensing function to
control certification, training, and quality standards for the
enterprise." 29
The momentous collision over community control In New York
City schools In 1968 and 1969 probably alienated the New Left
even more from teachers and teacher unionism because of Its
overriding Identification with the civil rights movement, but
oven before the dramatic events in New York City, the proponents
of educational reform were split between those who hailed
teachers as "heroes and heroines of endurance" and commended
"their great union," and education's "romantic" and radical
critics who saw little value In either. 30
Against this political backdrop it is easier to understand
the abstract quality for which much revisionist history has been
faulted, especially the work of Michael Katz. 31 Some writers
attributed the abstraction to the use of social class In a
deterministic manner, while other more sympathetic social
historians have Identified the shortcoming as a failure to
explore resistance to social control, as well as Its triumph. 32
However, few observers connected the abstraction to the
invisibility of schooling's actors, the teachers and students who
populate the institutions. Only quite recently have historians
begun to ask how economic pressures, schooling's structural
changes, and pedagogical or social attitudes actually altered
11
13
teachers and students' lives in schools, as for instance Larry
Cuban has done for the latter factors. 33
Though the work of revisionist historian was faulted as
distorting history through an imposition of modern political
concerns, more traditional critics also ignored teachers lives
and organizations. For example, Diane Ravitch's political
history of educational conflict in New York City public schools
covered 150 years with no analysis of teachers or their role in
school politics until the 1968 collision between the United
Federation of Teachers and advocates of decentralization. 34
Ultimately, teachers as a subject of historical
investigation were discovered at the crossroads of labor and
women's history, but not before both perspectives were well-
established. Winter 1970 Labor History critically reviewed a
historical study of the New York City Teachers Union, written by
a well-known leader of its Communist faction, but interest in the
book probably stemmed from the author's (and labor historians')
ideological concerns more than regard for teachers as unionists
since the annual bibliography indexed articles on "socialism" and
"communism" but not education. 35 In 1973, in its fourteenth year
of publication, Labor History contained its first discussion of
teacher unionism as a labor development. 36 Why were Tampa's
immigrant tobacco workers at the turn of the century, a history
of the American Civil Liberties Union, and a book on modern
African trade unions of interest to labor historians while
teachers were not? 37 Teachers had, after all, participated in
12
14
over 500 strikes during the decade that these articles and book
reviews appeared. 38
One reason was women's invisibility throughout the 1960*3 in
Labor History ; "women" as a bibliographic category was introduced
simultaneously with "education" in the Winter 1971 issue of
Labor History . However, another part of the explanation is what
David Tyack identified as the "animus against the lower-middle
class teacher/ 1 a prejudice which was prevalent in the work of
feminist historians as well. 39 As Joan Jacobs Brumberg and Nancy
Tomes explained, "because the nineteenth-century woman
professional existed somewhere between the exploited female
industrial laborer and the nonproductive bourgeoise [sic] lady,
she has been relegated to the periphery of research and writing
in the field of women's history." 40
Brumberg and Tomes note that absence of scholarship about
the history of female professions "may well reflect the
ambivalence of women historians about the meaning and
consequences of professionalism in their own personal lives." 41
As a "minor profession" teaching exacerbates that ambivalence and
as woman's "true" profession, teaching creates even more
uncomfortable conflicts for feminists. For one, "women teach and
men manage," which is not an ideal model of women's participation
in the labor force, at least not for proponents cf sexual
equality. 42 For another, many of teaching's responsibilities are
inescapably nurturing, which makes them also ineluctably female
according to the existing division of labor. 43 An occupation
13
ERIC 1 0
which is "female" in nature heightens the tension in feminism
between the desire for equality and assertion of difference, a
problem Ruth Milkman has discussed. 44 One early feminist analysis
of women's social roles rejected the "compassion trap" which
accounted for the concentration of educated women in the "so-
called helping professions," where they perform the "nurturing
and protective functions ... the housekeeping tasks on behalf of
society at large." 45
The dichotomous class biases of feminist historians, both as
proponents of women* s rising class status and as defenders of
female industrial workers, are clear in feminist writings about
history of education. One study, a history of women in America
dedicated to "the women who taught us and the women we teach"
contains no essay about women teachers, either in the section on
education or the segment on women workers. The women workers
scrutinized are a Ci ionial business woman, nineteenth century
collar laundry workers, Chinese prostitutes in California, and
hospital workers. The history of women in education is defined as
the education women received, not gave. In one essay Rosalind
Rosenberg quotes a professor at the University of Chicago who
opposed women's use of undergraduate courses as a substitute for
normal school preparation for teaching careers, but implications
of this use of higher education for teacher preparation escape
the author's attention. 46
With the exception of the Tyack and Strober article noted
earlier, Signs had no article on teachers before 1984, although
14
16
there were three articles on history of education describing
women's lives as students and five entries on "factory work." 47
In 197S Alice Kessler-Harris analyzed the AFL's atttitudes and
experience in organizing women workers from 1885- to 1925 and
didn't mention teachers, explaining that "women worked at
traditionally hard to organize unskilled jobs" like garment
workers or domestics. 48 However, a dissertation in history of
education written one year after the Kessler-Harris article noted
that in 1903 an AFL convention urged central labor bodies to
assist in organizing the nation's 430,000 teachers, and Butte,
Oklahoma City, Scranton, and Gary, cities with strong socialist
traditions, all had teacher groups affiliated with the AFL in
1S15. In reply to a query from the American Political Science
Association about the advisability of unions for teachers,
Gompers replied "We are glad to commend the teacher union
principle to teachers, for we know it leads to liberty." 49
Through 1986 Feminist Studies had still not discussed
teachers' lives, though Volume 5, number 2 featured a female coal
miner on the cover. In History of Education Quarterly throughout
the 1970 's, feminist historians focused on women's experience in
education as college students or school administrators. 50 An
irony unnoticed by a group of authors who detailed the
achievements of feminist historiography, using education "as an
example of a field in which the primary direction of feminist
scholarship has been to look at how an institution- in this case,
the schools- shapes women's lives," was that their work was
15
17
bereft of analysis of how women themselves have shaped the
schools In which they have worked. 51
In their work on teachers and teacher organizations, Julia
Wrigley, and Ira Katznelson and Margaret Weir have perhaps most
successfully synthesized the political, economic, and social
history that is needed to deal with class, gender, and culture in
the history of education. *' 2 As Douglas Sloan argued historians
must, they have preserved "a sense of the actors in the situation
and the ways they work and are worked upon by the institutional
stricture in any given circumstance. 1,53 However there are
indications that their historiographic contribution may be
ignored when the history of educational reform in the 1960 's is
begun.
Maxlne Qreene noted over twentyfive years ago that quality
educational reform could not be achieved without the values which
the "romantic" critics advocated, but would also be elusive "if
teachers do not assert themselves as dignified human beings who
can afford to respect the children in their classrooms because
they have learned to respect themselves." 54 The historic presence
of teachers and their organizations is a critically important
topic of Investigation, both for "presentist" concerns about
contemporary educational reform and for a thorough understanding
of what was and what might have been in the history of education.
16
18
I.Joel Perlmann, "Who Stayed in School? Social Structure and
Academic Achievement in the Determination of Enrollment Patterns,
Providence, Rhode Island, 1880-1925," The Journal of American
History 72, (December 1985) 588-614. ,
2. Lorraine McDonnell, "The Control of Political Change Within an
Interest Group: The Case of the National Education Association,"
(Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1975).
3. Phi Delta Kaooan 43 (1961), 2-8 and 118-124.
4. Editor's note, Teachers College Record 66 (October 1964), 7.
5. Editor's note, Teachers College Record 66 (February 1965), 453.
6. Dissertation Abstracts 25 p. 73, 26 p. 124, 27 p. 139, 28 p. 165,
29 p. 154-155 (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1964-65,1965-
66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69).
7.Jo8eph Cronin, review of Collective Negotiations for Teachers
by Myron Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Teachers College Record
37 (Winter 1967) , 157.
8. George Counts, review of Teachers and Unions by Michael H.
Moskow, Teachers College Record 37 (Winter 1967), 150.
9. Wayne Urban, "Organized Teachers and History of Education
Quarterly . " 17 (Spring 1976), 35-42. Panels for Division P,
History and Historiography of Education, 1974 AERA convention
announcement in History of Education Quarterly 13 (Winter 1973).
Robert L. Reid was scheduled to discuss "Organizing the Teachers:
Women Activists in the Progressive Era" in a panel on "Women in
American Education: A Historical Perspective," with David Tyack
as the panel discussant. An entire panel on "Organized Labor,
Teachers Unions, and American Education" had been organized with
David Selden, APT president, as discussant.
10. Joseph Feathers tone, essay review of Schooling in Capitalist
America b y Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis in History of
Education Quarterly 17 (Spring 1977), 149.
17
1H
11. Arthur G. Powell, review of The Culture and Politics of
American Teachers . History of Education Quarterly 18, (Summer
1978): 187.
12. Marvin Lazerson, review of the newly edited autobiography of
Margaret Haley, Why Teachers Organized by Wayne Urban, and Class
Politics and Public Schools: Chicago 1900-1950 by Julia Wrigley
in History of Education Quarterly 24 (Summer 1984), 261-270.
13. Lawrence Cremin, The Wonderful World of El I wood Patterson
Cubberley (New York: Teachers College, 1965), 45.
14.R.E. Mason, review of Education and American History by the
Fund for the Advancement of Education in History of Education
Quarterly 5 (September 1965): 182
15. Edward R. Beauchamp, Dissertlons in the History of Education
1970-1980 (Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1985)
16. David Tyack,"The History of Education andd the Preparation of
Teachers: A Reappraisal," in Understanding History of Education
eds. Robert R. Sherman and Joseph Kirschner (Cambridge, MA:
Schenkman Publishing, 1976), 4-10.
17. David Tyack, The One Best System (Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press, 1974}
18. John H. Milor, "Uncle Charlie's Teaching Days," History of
Education Quarterly 9 (Spring 1958). Elinor Mondale Gersman, "A
Bibliography for Historians of Education, " History of Education
Quarterly 12 (Spring 1972), 81.
19. Joe R. Burnett, review of Pedagogues and Power: Teacher
Groups in Sjhool Politics . Teachers College Record 71, (September
1969) ,173.
20. Diane Ravitch, The Troubled Crusade: American Education 1945-
1980 (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 237.
18
20
9
• J .
21. Lawrence A. Cremin, "The Free School Movement - A
Perspective, " Today's Education 63 (September 1974), 72.
22. Faith Weinstein Dunne, review of Don't Smile Unltl Christmas
by Kevin Ryan in Harvard Educational Review 41 (August 1971),
408.
23.Ravtich, The Troubled Crusade. 236.
24.Johnathan Kozol , Death at an Early A ge (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1967)
2 5. Herbert R. Kohl, On Teaching (New York: Schocken Books, 1976)
26. Herbert Kohl, The Open Classroom (Naw York: New York Review of
Books, 1969)
27.Maxine Greene, review of Chan ging Education and This
Magazine Is about Schools . Harvard Educational Review
37 (Fall 1967), 675.
2 8. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Sc hooling in Capitalist
America (New York: Basic Books, 1976), 266.
29. David Cohen, "Reforming School Politics," Harvard Educational
Review 48 (November 1978), 432.
30. Mortimer Kreuter, "The Teacher in the Brown Paper Bag," The
Urban Review 1 (May 1966)
31. Michael B. Katz, The Irony of Early School Reform (Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press, 1968) and Clas, Bureaucracy and
Schools (New York: Praeger. 1971)
32. Diane Ravitch, The Revisionists Revised (New York: Basic
Books, 1977). Sol Cohen, "Reconstructing the History of
Education," in ed. Gerald Grace, Education and the City (Boston:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), 115-138. Ira Katznelson and
Margaret Weir, Schooling for All (New York: Basic Books, 1985).
Julia Wrigley, Class Politics and Public Schools 1900-1950 (New
19
9
ERIC
Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1982)
33. Larry Cuban, How Teachers Taught/ Constancy and Change in
American Classrooms 1890-1980 (New York: Longman, 1984).
34. Diane Ravitch, The Great School Wars (New York: Basic
Books , 1974 ) .
35. Ronald Donovan, review of The New York Teachers Union. 191 6-
1964 by Celia Lewis Zitron in Labor History 11 (Winter 1970),
105-107 "
3 6. Robert E. Doherty, review of Teachers and Power, The Story of
the Uni ted Federation of Teachers by J. Braun in Labor History 14
(Spring 1973), 301-304
37.Durward Long, "La Resistencia: Tampa's Immigrant Labor
Union, 1 ' Labor History 6 (Pall 1965), 193-213. William
Preson, review of The Noblest Crv: A History of the ACLU ir. Labor
History 7 (Pall 1966), 343-346. Paul Rosenblum, review of African
Trade Unions . Labor History 9 (Winter 1968), 144-148.
38. Lorraine McDonnell, op. cit.
39. David Tyack, The One Best System . (Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press, 1974), 10.
40. Joan Jacobs Brumberg and Nancy Tomes, "Women in the
Professions: A Research Agenda for American Historians," Review s
in American History (June 1982), 276.
41. Joan Jacobs Brumberg and Nancy Tomes, "Women in the
Professions: A Reserch Agenda for American Historians," 276.
42. David Tyack and Myra Strober, "Why do Women Teach andd Men
Manage? A Report on Research on Schools," signs 5 (Spring 1980)
20
* 41 ♦
43. Susan Larid, "Reforming 'Woman's True Prsofession' , " Harvard
Educational Review 58 (November 1988), 449-463.
44. Ruth Milkman, "Women's History and the Sear's Case," Feminist
Studies 12 (Summer 1986}, 375-400
45. Margaret Adams, "The Compassion Trap," in Woman in Sexist
Society , eds. Vivian Gornick and Barbara K. Moran (New York:
Basic Books, 1971), 402-403
4 6. Carol Ruth Berken and Mary Beth Norton, Women in America-
A History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1979).
4 7. Index of Volumes 1-10 Signs (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press)
48. Alice Kessler-Harris, "Where are the Organized Women Workers?"
Feminist Studies 3 (Fall 1975), 92-110.
49. Richard T.LaPointe, "Ideology and Organization in Teacher
Unionism," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles, 1976), 37
50. Patricia A. Palmieri, "Here Was Fellowship: A Social Portrait
of Academic Women at Wellesley College, 1895-1925,: History
of Education Quarterly 23 (Summerl983) , 195-214. Anne Firor
Scott, "The Ever Widening Circle: The Diffusion of Feminist
Values from the Troy Female Seminary 1822-1872," History of
Education Quarterly 19 (Spring 1979), 3-26.
51. Ellen Carol DuBois, Gail Paradise Kelly, Elizabeth Lapovsky
Kennedy, Carolyn W. Korsmeyer, and Lillian S. Robinson, Feminist
Scholarship (Chicago and Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1985), 68.
52. Julia Wrigley, Cl ass Politics and Public Schools 1900-1950 .
Ira Katznelson and Margaret Weir, Schooling for All .
5 3. Doug las Sloan, Historiography and the History of Education
(New York: Institute of Philosophy and Politics of Education,
Teachers College), 10.
21
ERIC
?3
54.Maxine Greene, Harvard Educational Review 37, 674.
ERIC
22
24